Full Text
Translation output
\
, #28
% 03.08.2011
Present: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate for the petitioner.
Respondent in person.
+Crl.M.C. No. 1731/2OO8
North Delhi Power Ltd., the petitioner herein is seeking following prayer:
Allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated
1.3.2008 passed by the court of Shri Vinod Kumar, Additional
Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. Revision No.227 of 2006 titled
Balbir Singh Solanki
, #28
% 03.08.2011
Present: Mr. Vikram Nandrajog, Advocate for the petitioner.
Respondent in person.
+Crl.M.C. No. 1731/2OO8
North Delhi Power Ltd., the petitioner herein is seeking following prayer:
Allow the petition and set aside the impugned order dated
1.3.2008 passed by the court of Shri Vinod Kumar, Additional
Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Crl. Revision No.227 of 2006 titled
Balbir Singh Solanki
VERSUS
State and dismiss the application for refund filed by the respondent.
Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed."
I.a
-f
,,A. B.
-a.
Briefly stated, background facts for the disposal of this application are that on 22.06.1-999 DVB officials conducted a raid at 13 premises including a premise situated in Village Pooth Kalan, Nangloi Road, near
DBV Pole No.302 and allegedly found the respondent Balbir Singh Solanki illegally drawing electricity directly from DVB LV mains. On the basis of the inspection report, a complaint was made to SHO Sultan Puri under
- Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act on basis of which FIR No.681/99 was registered against Balbir Singh at P.S. Sultan Puri. Complainant DVB also raised an assessment bill with respect to power theft to the tune of
<r2,46,2941-.
The respondent moved an application for grant of bail aforesaid matter. The learned trial court granted the bail in to the the
2011:DHC:10716
\[ respondent subject to payment of 20o/o of the theft
Thus, the respondent paid a sum of < 2,49,2601- raised by the DVB. bill raised by the DVB. being 2O% of the bill
I
\.1
Respondent Balbir Singh was charged for the offence under Section
39t44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 lPC. The case ultimately resulted in acquittal.
Respondent, after his acquittal, moved an application seeking refund of the amount paid to the complainant to meet the condition of
,baiL Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his order dated 01.07.2006 dismissed the application for refund.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision petition against the order of learned M.M. and the lbarned Additional SessionsJudge, vide order dated 01.03.2008, relying upon the
Such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may also be passed."
I.a
-f
,,A. B.
-a.
Briefly stated, background facts for the disposal of this application are that on 22.06.1-999 DVB officials conducted a raid at 13 premises including a premise situated in Village Pooth Kalan, Nangloi Road, near
DBV Pole No.302 and allegedly found the respondent Balbir Singh Solanki illegally drawing electricity directly from DVB LV mains. On the basis of the inspection report, a complaint was made to SHO Sultan Puri under
- Section 39 of Indian Electricity Act on basis of which FIR No.681/99 was registered against Balbir Singh at P.S. Sultan Puri. Complainant DVB also raised an assessment bill with respect to power theft to the tune of
<r2,46,2941-.
The respondent moved an application for grant of bail aforesaid matter. The learned trial court granted the bail in to the the
2011:DHC:10716
\[ respondent subject to payment of 20o/o of the theft
Thus, the respondent paid a sum of < 2,49,2601- raised by the DVB. bill raised by the DVB. being 2O% of the bill
I
\.1
Respondent Balbir Singh was charged for the offence under Section
39t44 of the Indian Electricity Act read with Section 379 lPC. The case ultimately resulted in acquittal.
Respondent, after his acquittal, moved an application seeking refund of the amount paid to the complainant to meet the condition of
,baiL Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, vide his order dated 01.07.2006 dismissed the application for refund.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision petition against the order of learned M.M. and the lbarned Additional SessionsJudge, vide order dated 01.03.2008, relying upon the
JUDGMENT
of Delhi High Court in the matter of Usha Anand Vs. CBI and Anr., 132(2006) DLT 402 set aside the order of learned M.M. and directed the petitioner (successor in the interest of complainant) to refund the amount in question to the revisionist (respondent). Said amount has already been refunded to respondent.
Vide instant petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.03.2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law for the reason that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the f( amount deposited by the petitioner was against the electricity bill raised for illegal consumption of the electricity by the respondent, as such, there was no justification for refund of the amount which was deposited as part payment of the electricity bill. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of J.M.D. Alloys
Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 226 and submitted that in the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that acceptance of closure report by the Magistrate has no bearing on the validity of the compensatory bill in respect of power theft raised by the f ftectricity Board. Thus, if at all respondent was aggrieved of the bill raised by the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner, he had every right to challenge the bill in civil proceedings and since he did not take recourse to the civil proceedings, there was no occasion for asking the petitioner to refund the amount.
_J Respondent Balbir Singh Solanki, who is unrepresented by any counsel, on the other hand has argued in support of the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.'
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record, *-I
>A
I have carefully gone through the judgment cited by the petitioner.
In my considered view, aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the aforesaid case, Supreme Court has enunciated the principle of liability that if a person is exonerated in a criminal trial, it will have no bearing on the civil consequences of the act which was subject matter of the registration of case/trial. Indeed, as per the principle
\Y enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, Delhi Vidyut Board (the predecessor in interest of the petitioner) had a right to seek civil remedy by moving the court, but the fact is that DVB has not opted to do so.
Admittedly, the respondent was arrested on the allegations of having committed power theft. Learned M.M., vide order dated
12.07.1999, admitted the respondent to bail subject to the condition to
> pay 2Oo/o of the bill raised by the complainant DVB in respect of power theft within two months of his release in two equal instalments. Case of respondent is that in order to secure his release, he was constrained to
.
,"/,paY
20o/o of the amount of the theft bill raised by DVB and said payment cannot be construed as admission of liability or that the respondent has actually consumed power by drawing electricity from the DVB LV main.
Respondent was charged and tried for power theft, but on conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge. Accordingly, the respondent was
_l acquitted. This implies that the prosecution has failed to establish that respondent was involved in power theft by drawing electricity from the main line. That being the case, in absence of any adjudication by the civil
, coutt, the respondent cannot be held liable for payment of the electricity
'. I
!' bill raised by DVB with respect to power theft or any part thereof. Thus, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge whereby he accepted the revision against the order of learned M.M. and directed NDPL (the successor in interest of DVB) to refund the amount in question to the respondent.
\r4
\\
In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of revision court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is accordingly dism issed.
JUDGE
{}- AUGUST 03, 2OL1 pst
{'
--{
Vide instant petition, the petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 01.03.2008 of learned Additional Sessions Judge.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is bad in law for the reason that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has failed to consider that the f( amount deposited by the petitioner was against the electricity bill raised for illegal consumption of the electricity by the respondent, as such, there was no justification for refund of the amount which was deposited as part payment of the electricity bill. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in the matter of J.M.D. Alloys
Ltd. Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Others, (2003) 5 SCC 226 and submitted that in the aforesaid case, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that acceptance of closure report by the Magistrate has no bearing on the validity of the compensatory bill in respect of power theft raised by the f ftectricity Board. Thus, if at all respondent was aggrieved of the bill raised by the predecessor in the interest of the petitioner, he had every right to challenge the bill in civil proceedings and since he did not take recourse to the civil proceedings, there was no occasion for asking the petitioner to refund the amount.
_J Respondent Balbir Singh Solanki, who is unrepresented by any counsel, on the other hand has argued in support of the impugned order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge.'
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record, *-I
>A
I have carefully gone through the judgment cited by the petitioner.
In my considered view, aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the facts of this case. In the aforesaid case, Supreme Court has enunciated the principle of liability that if a person is exonerated in a criminal trial, it will have no bearing on the civil consequences of the act which was subject matter of the registration of case/trial. Indeed, as per the principle
\Y enunciated in the aforesaid judgment, Delhi Vidyut Board (the predecessor in interest of the petitioner) had a right to seek civil remedy by moving the court, but the fact is that DVB has not opted to do so.
Admittedly, the respondent was arrested on the allegations of having committed power theft. Learned M.M., vide order dated
12.07.1999, admitted the respondent to bail subject to the condition to
> pay 2Oo/o of the bill raised by the complainant DVB in respect of power theft within two months of his release in two equal instalments. Case of respondent is that in order to secure his release, he was constrained to
.
,"/,paY
20o/o of the amount of the theft bill raised by DVB and said payment cannot be construed as admission of liability or that the respondent has actually consumed power by drawing electricity from the DVB LV main.
Respondent was charged and tried for power theft, but on conclusion of trial, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge. Accordingly, the respondent was
_l acquitted. This implies that the prosecution has failed to establish that respondent was involved in power theft by drawing electricity from the main line. That being the case, in absence of any adjudication by the civil
, coutt, the respondent cannot be held liable for payment of the electricity
'. I
!' bill raised by DVB with respect to power theft or any part thereof. Thus, in my opinion, there is no infirmity in the order of learned Additional
Sessions Judge whereby he accepted the revision against the order of learned M.M. and directed NDPL (the successor in interest of DVB) to refund the amount in question to the respondent.
\r4
\\
In view of the above, I find no reason to interfere with the order of revision court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is accordingly dism issed.
JUDGE
{}- AUGUST 03, 2OL1 pst
{'
--{